Don Quichotte

Miguel de Cervantes's great novel, "Don Quixote," (Part One, 1605, Part Two, 1615)has been treated in opera, musical comedy, Spanish zarzuela, ballet, film and the fine arts, though it is best played out in the theater of the imagination. To this film can come closest and G. W. Pabst's sensitive treatment in black and white does well indeed. The great Russian bass Feodor Chaliapin, who sang the title role in Jules Massenet's gorgeous 1910 opera, "Don Quichotte," plays Don Quixote, and sings too, with nice music credited to Jacques Ibert. George Robey makes a splendid Sancho Panza. The adaptation is intelligent, with many of the best known episodes treated,if not in the same order as in the book. The film handles well the Duke and Duchess, who humor Don Quixote and Sancho Panza for their amusement, but are somewhat humbled. Having the windmills (Part One, chapter 8) and burning of romances of chivalry at the end (Part One, chapter 6), with the death of Quixote, works surprisingly well. It is worth cleaning up and re-releasing, if possible.

For me, this film is defined by the printed paper and his metamorphosis. The bustle, the delicate ash, the music are principal words of Cervantes masterpiece definition. So, the film must be a success at least for impressive presence of Chaliapin.

In fact, it is not a film but a huge monument, the Baroque interpretation of Chaliapin has the talent to create a fantastic world.The pathetism of opera is part of gorgeous sophisticated fine expression

Only values for a verdict in this case are subjectives. A legend of Russian Opera is Don Quixote. Every feature of character is slice of a subtle science of chimera's revelation. Every gesture is a form to describe sweet secret of fragile world. And Chaliapin is Chaliapin.

But, more important, it is statute of testimony. The trip between symbols and facts, between refuges and truth. "Don Quixote" is not a ordinary picturization, it is a propaganda instrument.

The three versions, "Man and Mask", the recordings , Mefistofele, the shows in Europe and the fame are elements of a special artist portrait who gives to his character not only a special soul but a subtle vision about life and illusion.

I believe that this movie was for Chaliapin an adventure. His art is same, his acting is interesting and correct. For he, the hero from La Mancha is an alter-ego not ordinary character. So, the force of interpretation is charming, strong and pure.

G. W. Pabst directed two version of the story of the knight of the Woeful Countenance, both released in 1933; Chaliapin also provided the voice for Lotte Reiniger's animated version that same year. I took a look at the English-language version. It was not, alas, in particularly good shape, had twenty minutes cut from its 75-minute length, and Chaliapin, although he looks like the classical emaciated version of the Don, and sings beautifully, has a Georgian accent that made him rather difficult to understand.

George Robey as Sancho Panza is excellent, and Cervantes story is transformed from a satire to an unmitigated tragedy.

Feodor Chaliapin stars as Don Quixote, a mentally unbalanced old man who believes that he's a knight engaged in fantastic, romantic adventures. He's assisted/enabled by his cohort Sancho Panza (George Robey)

Pabst filmed multiple versions of this at once, with some cast changes, and the English and French versions are apparently the most widely available. I saw the English version. I've read a lot of good things about this movie for many years and was happy to finally see, but I have to wonder if the praise is for the French version. I must admit that I don't really care for the Don Quixote story, nor any film and TV versions that I've seen. In fact, the musical film Man of La Mancha was one of the most excruciating movie watching experiences of my life. In this version, Chaliapin breaks out into operatic song a few times, which only served to throw my interest to the wind. I appreciated some of the camera tricks Pabst used, but with obnoxious characters, terrible sound, and Chaliapin's mangled English rendering most his dialogue unintelligible, I didn't really care for this at all. Oh, and here's another example of a film with no current genre thread in which it fits.

(This is a review of the VHS version)

G.W.Pabst's film version of "Don Quixote", originally filmed in three languages, but with the same leading actor, may not please all lovers of the great Cervantes novel, but it makes a fascinating document for music lovers and opera buffs. Although not based at all on the Jules Massenet opera in which he sang the title role, this is the only chance to see and hear the great Russian basso Fyodor Chaliapin in one of his greatest roles.

Chaliapin revolutionized the art of opera acting, and if he had wanted to, could have been an equally effective non-singing actor, although his English is heavily accented and he tends to declaim rather than just speak. His singing voice in this film is probably not what it once was, but he is so charismatic that he holds the audience riveted.(You may squirm through some of the songs, though - this isn't Massenet's opera, or "Man of La Mancha", for that matter.)

The supporting cast is quite good in both English and French versions (I haven't seen the German one), and Chaliapin himself speaks and sings better French than English. The photography is beautiful, although this really isn't Spain,and the windmill sequence is a flabbergasting accomplishment for 1933. You may like a little more emotional involvement in your movies, though.

Be warned - the French version (on the videocassette, not the DVD) has no subtitles - they assume you've already seen it in English since they both come in the same package.